I think the only way to have a truly competitive field is if we have an engine manufacturer's championship as well as a constructor's championship. If the engine manufacturers were given prize money for building the engine that scores the most points between the teams, that would encourage them to provide competitive customer engines, reduce costs to the teams as the cost of engines would be supplemented by winnings, also engine manufacturers would be encouraged to take on as many teams as possible, maybe even offering them competitive engines for free.

This would be great for the smaller teams as they would also have a fair shot at victory. Currently they are forced to race uncompetitive engines and have no chance of getting a win or a realistic podium result.

The DNA and ethos of Formula One would still remain, with engines still at the forefront of technology but more widely accessible for teams.

It may be a half baked idea as one engine has be completely dominant for the last four years but maybe it would level the field and bit and bring other teams into contention. It might take a while to work but eventually it would hopefully have the desired effect. Can somebody could give us example championship results of previous seasons, with the total points each engine scored amongst the teams?

Not all engine manufacturers supply an equal number of teams (and that is not possible either)

No one really cares about the WCC championship as it is. People will care less about the WEMC even less. Ferrari and Mercedes definitely won't - they want to win the WCC and they would definitely sacrifice the WEMC to achieve that goal.

I outlined a possible solution to the problem, and that is to treat engines with the same rules as tyres.

Engines have a fixed cost that the manufacturers are not allowed to charge more for.

Manufacturers must provide customers with identical engines to theirs, and these are distributed via a batched lottery system (similar to tyres) so they can only distribute an upgraded engine to teams once they can supply an equal number of that engine to new teams.

The two manufacturers supplying the least number of teams are compelled to supply any team that asks them for a supply.

Not all engine manufacturers supply an equal number of teams (and that is not possible either)

No one really cares about the WCC championship as it is. People will care less about the WEMC even less. Ferrari and Mercedes definitely won't - they want to win the WCC and they would definitely sacrifice the WEMC to achieve that goal.

I outlined a possible solution to the problem, and that is to treat engines with the same rules as tyres.

Engines have a fixed cost that the manufacturers are not allowed to charge more for.

Manufacturers must provide customers with identical engines to theirs, and these are distributed via a batched lottery system (similar to tyres) so they can only distribute an upgraded engine to teams once they can supply an equal number of that engine to new teams.

The two manufacturers supplying the least number of teams are compelled to supply any team that asks them for a supply.

It's not a bad attempt, but I'm not sure you can treat the engines like the tyres. The tyres are standard for everybody, which makes it easier to do a fixed cost. I'm all in favour of fixing (or at least, capping) the engine cost, but not sure teams may be forced to supply others if it becomes uneconomical for them to do so

Not all engine manufacturers supply an equal number of teams (and that is not possible either)

No one really cares about the WCC championship as it is. People will care less about the WEMC even less. Ferrari and Mercedes definitely won't - they want to win the WCC and they would definitely sacrifice the WEMC to achieve that goal.

I outlined a possible solution to the problem, and that is to treat engines with the same rules as tyres.

Engines have a fixed cost that the manufacturers are not allowed to charge more for.

Manufacturers must provide customers with identical engines to theirs, and these are distributed via a batched lottery system (similar to tyres) so they can only distribute an upgraded engine to teams once they can supply an equal number of that engine to new teams.

The two manufacturers supplying the least number of teams are compelled to supply any team that asks them for a supply.

It's not a bad attempt, but I'm not sure you can treat the engines like the tyres. The tyres are standard for everybody, which makes it easier to do a fixed cost. I'm all in favour of fixing (or at least, capping) the engine cost, but not sure teams may be forced to supply others if it becomes uneconomical for them to do so

True. The engine costs (manufacturing and developing) may be huge from one engine manufacturer to another, how can they have a fixed cost?

Not all engine manufacturers supply an equal number of teams (and that is not possible either)

No one really cares about the WCC championship as it is. People will care less about the WEMC even less. Ferrari and Mercedes definitely won't - they want to win the WCC and they would definitely sacrifice the WEMC to achieve that goal.

I outlined a possible solution to the problem, and that is to treat engines with the same rules as tyres.

Engines have a fixed cost that the manufacturers are not allowed to charge more for.

Manufacturers must provide customers with identical engines to theirs, and these are distributed via a batched lottery system (similar to tyres) so they can only distribute an upgraded engine to teams once they can supply an equal number of that engine to new teams.

The two manufacturers supplying the least number of teams are compelled to supply any team that asks them for a supply.

It's not a bad attempt, but I'm not sure you can treat the engines like the tyres. The tyres are standard for everybody, which makes it easier to do a fixed cost. I'm all in favour of fixing (or at least, capping) the engine cost, but not sure teams may be forced to supply others if it becomes uneconomical for them to do so

True. The engine costs (manufacturing and developing) may be huge from one engine manufacturer to another, how can they have a fixed cost?

Because of one can do it then it's possible. If the other manufacturers can't because they are surrendering lots more on r and d that's their choice.Restricting resale cost should in theory partially level the playing field

Not all engine manufacturers supply an equal number of teams (and that is not possible either)

No one really cares about the WCC championship as it is. People will care less about the WEMC even less. Ferrari and Mercedes definitely won't - they want to win the WCC and they would definitely sacrifice the WEMC to achieve that goal.

I outlined a possible solution to the problem, and that is to treat engines with the same rules as tyres.

Engines have a fixed cost that the manufacturers are not allowed to charge more for.

Manufacturers must provide customers with identical engines to theirs, and these are distributed via a batched lottery system (similar to tyres) so they can only distribute an upgraded engine to teams once they can supply an equal number of that engine to new teams.

The two manufacturers supplying the least number of teams are compelled to supply any team that asks them for a supply.

It's not a bad attempt, but I'm not sure you can treat the engines like the tyres. The tyres are standard for everybody, which makes it easier to do a fixed cost. I'm all in favour of fixing (or at least, capping) the engine cost, but not sure teams may be forced to supply others if it becomes uneconomical for them to do so

True. The engine costs (manufacturing and developing) may be huge from one engine manufacturer to another, how can they have a fixed cost?

Because of one can do it then it's possible. If the other manufacturers can't because they are surrendering lots more on r and d that's their choice.Restricting resale cost should in theory partially level the playing field

Ok, as a silly example to consider from the top of my head, Williams used a flywheel solution for the KERS harvesting instead of the system that the others were using. Surely there is going to be a difference in costs.

There is always the case of what you are saying, that if one can make it then anyone can, but it would mean that everyone would have the same solution. What would the difference be from a spec series then?

Not all engine manufacturers supply an equal number of teams (and that is not possible either)

No one really cares about the WCC championship as it is. People will care less about the WEMC even less. Ferrari and Mercedes definitely won't - they want to win the WCC and they would definitely sacrifice the WEMC to achieve that goal.

I outlined a possible solution to the problem, and that is to treat engines with the same rules as tyres.

Engines have a fixed cost that the manufacturers are not allowed to charge more for.

Manufacturers must provide customers with identical engines to theirs, and these are distributed via a batched lottery system (similar to tyres) so they can only distribute an upgraded engine to teams once they can supply an equal number of that engine to new teams.

The two manufacturers supplying the least number of teams are compelled to supply any team that asks them for a supply.

It's not a bad attempt, but I'm not sure you can treat the engines like the tyres. The tyres are standard for everybody, which makes it easier to do a fixed cost. I'm all in favour of fixing (or at least, capping) the engine cost, but not sure teams may be forced to supply others if it becomes uneconomical for them to do so

True. The engine costs (manufacturing and developing) may be huge from one engine manufacturer to another, how can they have a fixed cost?

Because of one can do it then it's possible. If the other manufacturers can't because they are surrendering lots more on r and d that's their choice.Restricting resale cost should in theory partially level the playing field

Ok, as a silly example to consider from the top of my head, Williams used a flywheel solution for the KERS harvesting instead of the system that the others were using. Surely there is going to be a difference in costs.

There is always the case of what you are saying, that if one can make it then anyone can, but it would mean that everyone would have the same solution. What would the difference be from a spec series then?

It wouldn't make a spec series unless you said they had to all use component X. If we let them spend all the money in the world there will still be a best solution, look at Honda now going down the same concept route as the others, will that make it a spec series too?

It's not a bad attempt, but I'm not sure you can treat the engines like the tyres. The tyres are standard for everybody, which makes it easier to do a fixed cost. I'm all in favour of fixing (or at least, capping) the engine cost, but not sure teams may be forced to supply others if it becomes uneconomical for them to do so

True. The engine costs (manufacturing and developing) may be huge from one engine manufacturer to another, how can they have a fixed cost?

Because of one can do it then it's possible. If the other manufacturers can't because they are surrendering lots more on r and d that's their choice.Restricting resale cost should in theory partially level the playing field

Ok, as a silly example to consider from the top of my head, Williams used a flywheel solution for the KERS harvesting instead of the system that the others were using. Surely there is going to be a difference in costs.

There is always the case of what you are saying, that if one can make it then anyone can, but it would mean that everyone would have the same solution. What would the difference be from a spec series then?

It wouldn't make a spec series unless you said they had to all use component X. If we let them spend all the money in the world there will still be a best solution, look at Honda now going down the same concept route as the others, will that make it a spec series too?

Well, if they had to go for the same part X as it is cheaper to buy it than manufacture their own, then it would have the same effect.

Anyway, I haven't put much thought into this, so I don't want to argue unnecessarily! Still at work, under the cosh I'm afraid

Would this proposition not encourage the four engine manufacturers to band together to make it almost impossible for any new engine manufacturer to enter the sport? If I was in charge of any engine manufacturer I would do everything within my power to keep any outsiders out of Formula One. And considering the support (and thus power) so many fans seem willing to grant the manufacturers, it would probably happen.

Ask yourself, if this scheme was in place for any of the decades and eras of Formula One, could they have produced a better history and better racing?

The first era of turbos would not have been born because Renault went against the trend.The Cosworth DFV may have never happened because it too was a radical and new engine and engine/chassis interface architecture.

We don't need another trophy, it serves no purpose but to encourage more trophies.